ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712

On Mar 8, 2:02 pm, "carrera d'olbani" <dolb....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> But I am surprsised somewhat how the Kodak designers could get 8000
> out of a 1/2.5" sensor. The other reviews say that Z712 got a maximum
> ISO of only 800. Perhaps it was a typo.

Well, if you lower your standards enough you can get as high as you
want. For example, the D200 at ISO 400000:
http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/74719850
(this is suboptimal, you could make it better). In fact I have some
shots at effective ISO 6500000. Not a problem at all, just a matter of
redefining "acceptable image".

Seriously, it is rather unlikely that that kodak can get anything
useful above, say, ISO 400 (well for some definition of useful; for
others, it'll be useless by ISO 200, or 800, or whatever). People keep
going on about how the Fuji f30 is great at high ISOs, better than any
other compact etc, but looking at samples on dpreview the results at
eg ISO 400 are noise reduced to the point of nausea. I mean, look at
this:
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/fujifinepixf30_samples/originals/dscf0734.jpg
Most people like this thing, but when I look at it, I just see a total
lack of texture and extremely obvious signs of heavy noise reduction.
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712 

On Mar 8, 11:23 pm, "acl" <achilleaslazari....DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2:02 pm, "carrera d'olbani" <dolb....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > But I am surprsised somewhat how the Kodak designers could get 8000
> > out of a 1/2.5" sensor. The other reviews say that Z712 got a maximum
> > ISO of only 800. Perhaps it was a typo.
>
> Well, if you lower your standards enough you can get as high as you
> want. For example, the D200 at ISO 400000:http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/74719850
> (this is suboptimal, you could make it better). In fact I have some
> shots at effective ISO 6500000. Not a problem at all, just a matter of
> redefining "acceptable image".

I am curious how you were able to make such a high (400000) ISO when
the camera allows only 1600 ?
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712 

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 05:56:31 -0800, carrera d'olbani wrote
(in article <1173362191.381076.246640 RemoveThis @q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>):

> On Mar 8, 11:23 pm, "acl" <achilleaslazari... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 2:02 pm, "carrera d'olbani" <dolb... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> But I am surprsised somewhat how the Kodak designers could get 8000
>>> out of a 1/2.5" sensor. The other reviews say that Z712 got a maximum
>>> ISO of only 800. Perhaps it was a typo.
>>
>> Well, if you lower your standards enough you can get as high as you
>> want. For example, the D200 at ISO
>> 400000:http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/74719850
>> (this is suboptimal, you could make it better). In fact I have some
>> shots at effective ISO 6500000. Not a problem at all, just a matter of
>> redefining "acceptable image".
>
> I am curious how you were able to make such a high (400000) ISO when
> the camera allows only 1600 ?
>
>

The usual method is to simply use manual and underexpose, then bring it up to
normal exposure in editing.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712 

On Mar 8, 3:40 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi... DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote:

> The 3200 image (downsampled to 6MP) looks like this.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359352/large

That is the main difference between the canons and the other CCD
cameras the 3200 image from the 5D is comparable (to me) to the 1600
from the D200, so about 1 stop. But pushing it higher (6400, 12800
etc) the D200 goes downhill faster (I have a series in full stops
above 1600, they deteriorate rapidly above 6400).
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712 

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:02:09 -0800, carrera d'olbani wrote:

>
> Well, no need for Fuji F30/F40 or in Sigma DP1 -- we got Kodak with
> the ISO 8000 (yes, eight thousand). Combined with 12x zoom and AA
> batteries, this small camera will be the one I will want. DPReview
> paid our attention at the extreme sensitivity of the camera,
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030705kodakpma.asp
>
> But I am surprsised somewhat how the Kodak designers could get 8000
> out of a 1/2.5" sensor. The other reviews say that Z712 got a maximum
> ISO of only 800. Perhaps it was a typo.

I think detailed information will reveal that the full 8000 ISO is not
available at full resolution. The 'Z' series does not shoot 'raw' either.
I'd suggest you look at the 'P' series - IS; raw,tiff,jpeg; full manual
mode. There are some good prices at the online store.
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712 

"ray" <ray.RemoveThis@zianet.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:pan.2007.03.08.16.41.45.532006@zianet.com...
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:02:09 -0800, carrera d'olbani wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, no need for Fuji F30/F40 or in Sigma DP1 -- we got Kodak with
>> the ISO 8000 (yes, eight thousand). Combined with 12x zoom and AA
>> batteries, this small camera will be the one I will want. DPReview
>> paid our attention at the extreme sensitivity of the camera,
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030705kodakpma.asp
>>
>> But I am surprsised somewhat how the Kodak designers could get 8000
>> out of a 1/2.5" sensor. The other reviews say that Z712 got a maximum
>> ISO of only 800. Perhaps it was a typo.
>
> I think detailed information will reveal that the full 8000 ISO is not
> available at full resolution. The 'Z' series does not shoot 'raw' either.
> I'd suggest you look at the 'P' series - IS; raw,tiff,jpeg; full manual
> mode. There are some good prices at the online store.
>
Neither do I. Kodak's own web site states a high sensitivity mode is
available with 3200 ISO at reduced resolution (1.2 MPixels). Due to the laws
of physics, it is highly unkilely that a camera with a 1/2.5" 7 MPixel
sensor would record anything besides noise at ISO 8000 (when used at normal
temperatures).
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712 

"carrera d'olbani" <dolbani.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:23 pm, "acl" <achilleaslazari....TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 2:02 pm, "carrera d'olbani" <dolb....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But I am surprsised somewhat how the Kodak designers could get 8000
>> > out of a 1/2.5" sensor. The other reviews say that Z712 got a maximum
>> > ISO of only 800. Perhaps it was a typo.
>>
>> Well, if you lower your standards enough you can get as high as you
>> want. For example, the D200 at ISO
>> 400000:http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/74719850
>> (this is suboptimal, you could make it better). In fact I have some
>> shots at effective ISO 6500000. Not a problem at all, just a matter of
>> redefining "acceptable image".

Here's the 5D at ISOs from 3200 to 25,600

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359389/original

The 3200 image (downsampled to 6MP) looks like this.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359352/large

> I am curious how you were able to make such a high (400000) ISO when
> the camera allows only 1600 ?

Use manual mode and underexpose. Since handholding at 1/20 is hard at 75mm,
I turned on more room lights for the ISO 3200 image, but the 6,400 image was
f/5.6 and 1/40, the 12,800 was f/5.6 at 1/90, and the 25,600 was f/5.6 at
1/180.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712 

On Mar 9, 2:27 pm, JXStern <JXSternChange....TakeThisOut@gte.net> wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2007 05:23:58 -0800, "acl" <achilleaslazari....TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >eg ISO 400 are noise reduced to the point of nausea. I mean, look at
> >this:
> >http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/fujifinepixf30_samples/originals/dsc...
> >Most people like this thing, but when I look at it, I just see a total
> >lack of texture and extremely obvious signs of heavy noise reduction.
>
> You'd rather trust the image stabilization to take the shot at ISO
> 100? May be fine as long as nothing moves.
>
> It's nice to have the choice. After all, I might be taking some snaps
> to put online at 320 pixels and compressed as heck.
>
> J.


Did I say that ISO 400 or 8000 should not be there? I was just
pointing out that, given that this F30 camera is supposed to be much
better than other compacts at this sort of thing, and given that its
image quality is what it is at ISO 400, it is rather unlikely that
anything pretty will come out of the kodak at 4 stops less exposure.
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712 

On Mar 9, 4:18 pm, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
<usern... RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote:

> This claim of ISO 8000 is nothing more than "digital ISO."
> a 1/2.5" sensor at 7 megapixels is about 1.9 micron pixel pitch.
> That performance is at the bottom of the graph in Figure 6 at:http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.sum...
> The "unity gain ISO" is the A/D bit level where 1 bit = 1 electron.
> For a 12-bit converter, and 1.9 micron pixels, unity gain ISO
> is at best ISO 100 and probably lower. Any ISO above that
> is essentially digital ISO. You can achieve higher effective
> ISOs (than ISO 100) with post processing. Thus all cameras have
> digital ISO with post processing.
>

Well that is what I said and demonstrated earlier in this thread (and
so did DJL). But anyway the important point to this thread is, I
believe, that it is fairly easy to guess that the results will be
rubbish without ever thinking about unity gain ISO and so on (simply
by looking at comparable sensors' output with 4 stops more light and
extrapolating; metrics such as unity gain ISO are just ways of
succintly expressing aspects of the same thing).
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712 

acl wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2:27 pm, JXStern <JXSternChange....RemoveThis@gte.net> wrote:
>> On 8 Mar 2007 05:23:58 -0800, "acl" <achilleaslazari....RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> eg ISO 400 are noise reduced to the point of nausea. I mean, look at
>>> this:
>>> http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/fujifinepixf30_samples/originals/dsc...
>>> Most people like this thing, but when I look at it, I just see a total
>>> lack of texture and extremely obvious signs of heavy noise reduction.
>> You'd rather trust the image stabilization to take the shot at ISO
>> 100? May be fine as long as nothing moves.
>>
>> It's nice to have the choice. After all, I might be taking some snaps
>> to put online at 320 pixels and compressed as heck.
>>
>> J.
>
>
> Did I say that ISO 400 or 8000 should not be there? I was just
> pointing out that, given that this F30 camera is supposed to be much
> better than other compacts at this sort of thing, and given that its
> image quality is what it is at ISO 400, it is rather unlikely that
> anything pretty will come out of the kodak at 4 stops less exposure.
>
This claim of ISO 8000 is nothing more than "digital ISO."
a 1/2.5" sensor at 7 megapixels is about 1.9 micron pixel pitch.
That performance is at the bottom of the graph in Figure 6 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary
The "unity gain ISO" is the A/D bit level where 1 bit = 1 electron.
For a 12-bit converter, and 1.9 micron pixels, unity gain ISO
is at best ISO 100 and probably lower. Any ISO above that
is essentially digital ISO. You can achieve higher effective
ISOs (than ISO 100) with post processing. Thus all cameras have
digital ISO with post processing.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712 

On 8 Mar 2007 05:23:58 -0800, "acl" <achilleaslazarides.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>eg ISO 400 are noise reduced to the point of nausea. I mean, look at
>this:
>http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/fujifinepixf30_samples/originals/dscf0734.jpg
>Most people like this thing, but when I look at it, I just see a total
>lack of texture and extremely obvious signs of heavy noise reduction.

You'd rather trust the image stabilization to take the shot at ISO
100? May be fine as long as nothing moves.

It's nice to have the choice. After all, I might be taking some snaps
to put online at 320 pixels and compressed as heck.

J.
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712 

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:33:10 +0100, "cgiorgio" <me.DeleteThis@nowhere.org> wrote:

>
>"ray" <ray.DeleteThis@zianet.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:pan.2007.03.08.16.41.45.532006@zianet.com...
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 05:02:09 -0800, carrera d'olbani wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, no need for Fuji F30/F40 or in Sigma DP1 -- we got Kodak with
>>> the ISO 8000 (yes, eight thousand). Combined with 12x zoom and AA
>>> batteries, this small camera will be the one I will want. DPReview
>>> paid our attention at the extreme sensitivity of the camera,
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030705kodakpma.asp
>>>
>>> But I am surprsised somewhat how the Kodak designers could get 8000
>>> out of a 1/2.5" sensor. The other reviews say that Z712 got a maximum
>>> ISO of only 800. Perhaps it was a typo.
>>
>> I think detailed information will reveal that the full 8000 ISO is not
>> available at full resolution. The 'Z' series does not shoot 'raw' either.
>> I'd suggest you look at the 'P' series - IS; raw,tiff,jpeg; full manual
>> mode. There are some good prices at the online store.
>>
>Neither do I. Kodak's own web site states a high sensitivity mode is
>available with 3200 ISO at reduced resolution (1.2 MPixels). Due to the laws
>of physics, it is highly unkilely that a camera with a 1/2.5" 7 MPixel
>sensor would record anything besides noise at ISO 8000 (when used at normal
>temperatures).


A number of years ago I was able to extract a recognisable image that
was 8 stops under exposed using a camera with an similar size sensor.
This would have been at ISO 24000 (if I did my mental math correctly)
And since I was using jpeg data, no noise reduction and only the
levels command in photoshop, I suspect that with raw data and a noise
reduction package like Noise Ninja most halfway decent P&S could be
pushed up to around ISO 8000

jpc
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712 

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
[]
> This claim of ISO 8000 is nothing more than "digital ISO."
> a 1/2.5" sensor at 7 megapixels is about 1.9 micron pixel pitch.
[]
> Roger

Just a typo, I think.

David
 >> Stay informed about: ISO 8000 in Kodak Z712